지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Although there are many aspects to the debate among philosophers about the moral status of animals, at its centre is the issue of whether it is acceptable to treat non-human creatures essentially as resources for human use. Another way to put the issue is to say that it has to do with who qualifies as a member of the moral community. The moral community can be said to consist of all those beings whose interests should receive the same consideration as our similar interests. Different philosophers have argued the issue from different ethical perspectives, and even philosophers arguing from the same general perspective may disagree with each other in their conclusions.
Several reasons can be identified to account for the reluctance of many environmentalists to embrace animal liberation. One is a belief that we would be obligated to rescue wild animals from harm, in violation of the predator-prey relation. A second reason is a desire on the part of many environmentalists for continued intervention in wild nature in the form of hunting and fishing. Third, there is the belief that maintaining ecosystems in a flourishing state sometimes requires us to reduce animal populations by killing some of their members.
The first reason-that we would be obligated to rescue wild animals from harm caused by predators or cold or disease, or by other natural factors-typically involves a misunderstanding of what is intended by the attribution of tights to animals. Regan and other liberationists deny that animals' having rights normally entails any duty on our part to rescue them from non-moral sources of harm. Even a utilitarian liberationist is unlikely to advocate acts that would significantly degrade ecosystems. The second and third reasons have more bite, however. Liberationists are normally strongly opposed to the killing of wild animals, except in self-defence. Not all environmentalists are in favour of hunting and fishing; still, many consider these activities to be compatible with a proper attitude toward the environment and see no reason to abandon them, even when they are not needed for subsistence or for management purposes. Managing ecosystems to promote such values as diversity, integrity, stability, and beauty frequently involves killing [culling] animals. While liberation activists typically oppose measures that harm individual animals, at least some philosophers argue that such harm can sometimes be justified even from an animal-rights perspective.
The thesis that liberationists cannot be environmentalists rests on a perceived incompatibility between promoting the good of ecosystems considered as wholes and promoting or ensuring the good of their individual members. The contrary thesis, that liberationists can indeed be environmentalists, rests to a large extent on the idea that the good of individual wild animals cannot be divorced from the existence of flourishing environments that allow them to exercise their natural powers and live their own lives, as free as possible from human interference.
Several reasons can be identified to account for the reluctance of many environmentalists to embrace animal liberation. One is a belief that we would be obligated to rescue wild animals from harm, in violation of the predator-prey relation. A second reason is a desire on the part of many environmentalists for continued intervention in wild nature in the form of hunting and fishing. Third, there is the belief that maintaining ecosystems in a flourishing state sometimes requires us to reduce animal populations by killing some of their members.
The first reason-that we would be obligated to rescue wild animals from harm caused by predators or cold or disease, or by other natural factors-typically involves a misunderstanding of what is intended by the attribution of tights to animals. Regan and other liberationists deny that animals' having rights normally entails any duty on our part to rescue them from non-moral sources of harm. Even a utilitarian liberationist is unlikely to advocate acts that would significantly degrade ecosystems. The second and third reasons have more bite, however. Liberationists are normally strongly opposed to the killing of wild animals, except in self-defence. Not all environmentalists are in favour of hunting and fishing; still, many consider these activities to be compatible with a proper attitude toward the environment and see no reason to abandon them, even when they are not needed for subsistence or for management purposes. Managing ecosystems to promote such values as diversity, integrity, stability, and beauty frequently involves killing [culling] animals. While liberation activists typically oppose measures that harm individual animals, at least some philosophers argue that such harm can sometimes be justified even from an animal-rights perspective.
The thesis that liberationists cannot be environmentalists rests on a perceived incompatibility between promoting the good of ecosystems considered as wholes and promoting or ensuring the good of their individual members. The contrary thesis, that liberationists can indeed be environmentalists, rests to a large extent on the idea that the good of individual wild animals cannot be divorced from the existence of flourishing environments that allow them to exercise their natural powers and live their own lives, as free as possible from human interference.
목차
1. 들어가며: 동물해방과 환경보호의 갈등
2. 동물해방 개념의 등장과 그 의의
3. 레오폴드의 대지 윤리와 리간의 동물권리
4. 캘리코트의 생태 중심 윤리
5. 공리주의적 동물해방과 환경윤리
6. 동물권리와 환경윤리
7. 생물공동체 경영에 대한 갈등
8. 나가면서: 인간중심적 패러다임의 극복
〈인용문헌〉
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Little Animal
Korea Journal
1963 .02
-
동물의 권리에 대한 윤리적 논의의 현황 : 동물해방론과 동물권리론의 전개과정을 중심으로
불교학보
2005 .08
-
아동문학 속의 저항하는 동물들
18세기영문학
2008 .01
-
영미아동 환경문학에 나타난 인간과 동물
영어영문학연구
2017 .01
-
한국사회의 동물위령제를 통해 본 동물의 죽음에 대한 사회적 인식의 변화
비교문화연구
2011 .07
-
동물 생명의 가치와 인간과의 공존
순천향 인문과학논총
2019 .01
-
동물실험과 심의
철학
2007 .08
-
宋代 사대부, 동물의 ‘知’를 변론하다
중국어문논역총간
2019 .01
-
초등학교 읽기 교과서의 동물동화 연구
동화와 번역
2008 .01
-
유기체 철학의 관점에서 동물에 관한 고찰
철학논총
2011 .04
-
遊仙文學에 나타난 道敎의 동물에 대한 형상과 인식
동방한문학
2015 .01
-
윌 킴리카의 동물권 정치론에 대한 비판적 고찰
철학
2013 .11
-
식물권을 정당화할 수 있는가?
현대유럽철학연구
2017 .01
-
Ted Hughes’s Animals Reconsidered
새한영어영문학
2010 .02
-
동물학대와 육식에 대한 작가들의 인식과 표현에 대한 연구 - 최근의 시를 중심으로
비평문학
2019 .06
-
조선시대 지식인들의 동물 애호와 문학적 형상
동방한문학
2014 .01
-
남성과 여성을 나타내는 동물 은유의 비판적 분석
담화와인지
2017 .11
-
쿳시의 『동물들의 삶』에 나타난 동물과 여성: 이성과 감정 사이
영미문학페미니즘
2011 .01
-
韓·中 동물명 명명(命名)기제 비교 연구
이중언어학
2009 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-810-017449695